Thursday, December 31, 2015

The year 2015 was one of exciting developments in the area of K-12 public education in America. Unfortunately, most of the excitement was of the type felt while witnessing a multi-car pile-up on the freeway. Several of the worst crashes are detailed below.

January
Record-breaking snow fall in New England prompt school officials to order snow shoes for all elementary school pupils so as not to miss a single day of learning, which would render the children unready for career and college.

February
Turkish Islamic scholar and preacher Fethullah Gülen, CEO of the largest charter school chain in America, contributes $5 million to Ohio congressional candidates, who pledge to support bills to translate the PARCC and Smarter Balance assessment instruments into Farsi so that Gülen charter school teachers can teach to the test.

March
Basis charter school CEO Michael Block receives a special allocation of $2 million from the Arizona Senate Education Committee to underwrite his lawsuit against the Michael Block management company for having supplied Basis schools with inferior teaching staffs. Block’s legal team, headed by Peter Block, retract their pro bono offer and agree to pursue the case.

April
Temp agency Teach For America CEO Wendy Kopp answers charges that TFA “teachers” use their 2-year tenure as a “resume builder” by releasing the names of three TFA grads who took positions in charter schools in 2014.

May
Nationwide Opt Out movement leaves thousands of classrooms empty as students, parents, and teachers take to the streets to protest over-testing. Pearson PLC statisticians promise to “impute scores of missing high school students by applying logistic regression model predictions to the missing students Kindergarten attendance records.”

June
Billionaire Bill Gates summons 100 big city school superintendents to Redmond, Washington to gauge response to his new small schools project. After declaring the first small schools project an abysmal failure, Gates plans to redouble his commitment to the idea and confer generous grants on those districts who limit high school sizes to 5 students. One hundred superintendents rise as one in grateful praise for Gates’s newest insight.

July
Scientists at the American Institutes for Research release study that shows that the first two hours of the school day – from 5:30 am to 7:30 am – account for less than 1% of the day’s learning due to students’ somnambulant state. Study recommendations include delaying the start of school until 5:45 am, so as to ensure that high school grads will be college and career ready.

The American Association of University Professors releases the results of a 14-day study that pronounces 99% of America’s high school graduates “not ready for college.” AAUP petitions the federal government to create a special loan program to support all Freshmen while they complete two semesters of remedial courses.

The National Association of Manufacturers issues a statement in response to Common Core supporters that they have “not the faintest idea what skills will be needed by persons entering the workforce of 2025.”

August
Nothing happened in public education in the month of August as tens of thousands of teachers treated their union thug representatives to cruises on their yachts in the Mediterranean and Caribbean.

September
All branches of the US military are joined by the NCAA, the American Association of Community Colleges, and the McDonalds Corporation in an announcement that they will no longer accept diplomas granted by K12 Inc and Pearson-owned Connections online academies as evidence of successful completion of high school requirements.

October
Billionaire Bill Gates summons 100 big city school superintendents to Redmond, Washington to announce his latest reform for the U.S. education system. Value-Added-Measurement (VAM) of administrators will tie superintendents’ salaries to districts’ pretest-posttest standardized test score gains. One hundred superintendents remain silently seated as one.

November
A special committee of the American Educational Research Association on Value-Added-Measurement (VAM) of teachers issues a report of its two-years’ deliberation that recommends that all tests used to fire teachers be “valid and reliable.” When quizzed by reporters on just how valid and reliable such tests must be, the committee chairperson reports that the members could not agree. Pearson PLC and the American Institutes for Research praise the hard-hitting committee report.

December
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson informs the U.S. public school system of their responsibilities: “I’m not sure public schools understand that we’re their customer—that we, the business community, are your customer. What they don’t understand is they are producing a product at the end of that high school graduation…Now is that product in a form that we, the customer, can use it? Or is it defective, and we’re not interested?” Tillerson pledges $3 billion to the Better Business Bureau to conduct a nationwide evaluation of the entire K-12 education system. Charter schools will be exempted since they have proven their worth by having survived in a free market.

President Barak Obama signs the Every Student Succeeds Act into law with its retraction of No Child Left Behind excessive testing requirements. Chastened by the hugely successful Opt Out movement, outgoing Secretary of Education Arne Duncan informs state authorities that if compliance falls below 95% with the ESSA mandated annual assessment that the government will takeover all public schools in the state and turn them into self-storage lockers.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
~
University of Colorado Boulder
National Education Policy Center
~
San José State University

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, University of Colorado Boulder, nor San José State University.

Friday, November 27, 2015

My Inbox for October 27, 2015, contained the usual collection of SPAM, ads, and offers to transfer millions of dollars to the U.S. from a prince in Nigeria. But one letter was most unexpected and not in the least routine. A teacher at Challenge Charter School in Glendale, Arizona, wrote, not to ask for help, but to let me know what is going on at one of the area's celebrated educational institutions.

A man named Greg Miller is president of the Arizona State Board of Education. There is also a man named Greg Miller who is CEO of Challenge Charter School in Glendale, AZ, a suburb of Phoenix. Matching up photos of the Board president and the charter CEO leaves no doubt that these two individuals are one in the same Greg Miller. Mr. Miller, a civil engineer for 25 years, founded Challenge Charter School in the late 1990s and for a while served as principal. His current title is CEO. ... [D]aughter Wendy Miller was appointed Principal of Challenge Charter School the same year in which she earned her MBA.

Greg Miller, the CEO of a school "system" with about 650 students, is being compensated to the tune of $145,000 annually. His wife receives the same salary, though her duties are never enumerated at the website and her position is only described as "Executive Director/Vice-PR" .... Wendy, who has degrees in Public Administration and Business, receives a salary of more than $120,000 for acting as Principal/Secretary. Basically, the Miller family, while working assiduously 60 hours a week each as reported on their IRS form, is taking about $425,000 a year out of the coffers for salary.

End of my blog post from February 2, 2015

A roughly half-million $ annual salary to three family members might be a great investment for educating 650 students in the world's greatest school. But my correspondent's letter of October 27th and other information lead me to believe that perhaps the Millers are not operating one of the world’s greatest educational institutions.

Herewith, my correspondent’s experiences:

‪Hello Dr. Glass,‬

‪I read with interest your article about Greg Miller and Challenge Charter School. I would add more to it if I may. I was employed as a sixth-grade teacher at CCS from July to September 25, 2015. I was originally hired in March because they were going to move a long-time employee to the position of vice principal. The woman's husband was then offered a job out of state and she was moving with him. ‬

‪I began my work with CCS in July and they loved me. The week of September 21, 2015, my job appeared to unravel. The Millers kept a constant eye on me with the video cameras they have in every classroom that are meant for student and teacher protection , not evaluation. On one occasion that week, I was having my students stretch at the end of our class session and Greg Miller came into my classroom yelling at me and the children. He told me to "get back to your job." After school that day, he called me into his office to tell me a parent had called to complain; her child had reported that I "looked scared" when Mr. Miller was yelling at me. He denies that he was yelling at me; he stated he was yelling at the children.‬

‪The Millers called into question my certificate, which I had and gave them a new copy. Systematically the Millers began digging into my personal life. On Friday, September 25th , the morning I received feedback on my first evaluation and after a change to their policy handbook (which I did not get to see) I was called in front of the Millers, all three of them. The assistant to Wendy Miller told me that I had three choices. I could be terminated, resign, or take a three-month leave of absence to keep my medical insurance. They accused me of being drunk on the job and refusing to take a drug test. I have been sober for more than 20 years. They continued saying I was mentally unstable and did not disclose a major medical illness on my application. I was told not to fight them as they had hours of video-tape on me and my inability to teach. They went further saying they had "called around about me" and said I was on heavy-duty medication. I was shocked. I took the leave of absence and was told to leave campus. ‬

‪I am writing to tell you this because people are afraid of Greg Miller. He is a bully, and he and his family have created a hostile work environment, firing teachers at will. The irony is the teacher who has taken my place was the one whom I replaced. She just happened to be on campus September 25th. It was announced in a staff meeting that I was gone "dealing with my problems" and that this teacher was gracious enough to return for the rest of the year.‬

‪My career in teaching is over  16 years of doing what I truly loved. They have ruined my name. I want people to know what the Millers are, and how horribly they can treat people to get what they want. ‬
‪

Regards,‬
‪[Name withheld]

I wrote back immediately to this teacher to ask if she was willing to have this episode made public. She said that she was and that it was important to bring to light how this charter school was operating. I suggested that she remain anonymous when I reproduce her letter in this blog. She replied that she had no wish to remain anonymous.

‪I do not wish any level of anonymity. I am to report back to the school on January 4, 2016, to be reassigned or terminated. Needless to say, I am sending my resignation January 3, 2016. ‬
‪You may use my experience as much as you would like. There is another teacher they have done this to as well, but she walked out. They have served her with a demand letter from their attorneys, stating she needs to pay them the rest of her salary. ‬
‪

I forgot to add that the Millers make all students wear uniforms from one company. Teachers are to check students’ tags to make sure they are from that company. It is my understanding that they receive a kickback from the company.‬

‪I am sure this is just the beginning of the battle that I am going to engage with them.‬
‪Thank you for helping me get the word out so other teachers are not taken in and spit out by the Millers.‬

‪Regards,‬
‪[Name withheld]

I continue to think that this teacher could be retaliated against, and that her anonymity in this venue is wise. However, if someone has good reason to contact her, I will forward that request to her email address. You may contact me at gvglass@gmail.com

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
~
University of Colorado Boulder
National Education Policy Center
~
San José State University

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, University of Colorado Boulder, nor San José State University.

Munger was recently quoted on the occasion of the centre temps of the drug company Valeant. Valeant's stock dropped more than 50% in price between August and November 2015 as its shady dealings in attempts to deceive auditors became known. Among its other alleged misdeeds has been the practice of buying up small pharmaceutical companies to acquire the patents to their drugs, then hugely increasing the price of the drugs. Munger called this practice "deeply immoral" and said that it was
"similar to the worst abuses in for-profit education."

It is simply shocking to see a sector of the country's education system being used as a simile for the corrupt practices of private corporations. Shocking, but apt.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Monday, November 2, 2015

Susan M. Tran is a young, second generation Vietnamese-American woman who completed a Bachelors degree in Spanish at the University of Colorado Boulder in 2010. She will soon complete a masters program and be certified as an elementary school teacher at the University of Northern Colorado. Susan is mature and intelligent; she recognized early in her career that becoming a teacher in the Age of Reformation is forcing idealistic young teachers to resolve contradictions  contradictions between 1) messages from reformers who believe that teaching is a low level trade that has no right to organize on its own behalf and for which six weeks of indoctrination are adequate training, and 2) messages from university-based teacher trainers who believe that good teaching is rooted in children's unique interests and capabilities and treats them as individuals, not as replicates of a governmentally defined template.

Here, Susan speaks for herself:

Throughout my education to be a teacher, one of the biggest questions that has arisen for me is “How do I meet the expectations and standards of the state and district, while also meeting the true needs of my students?” One of my biggest fears coming into the teaching profession is that we have started to confuse the acquisition of knowledge with the process of learning. In an effort to meet numeric goals and score high on standardized tests, we have become obsessed with how to get our students to perform in a way that satisfies a checklist, or a numerical score, or a national standard. I'm fearful that we have forgotten about instilling passion, excitement, and curiosity in our students. It is becoming less important to us to create better people, who care about each other and the world around them and think of ways to deal with the problems that they see in front of them. We discuss world problems only in so far as they fit into our standardized curriculum, but we don’t address the difficult yet inevitable issues that our students will eventually find themselves confronted with in the very near future.

I do understand the need for progression in a student’s knowledge. I see why it's important that our students are exposed to and encouraged to master a large variety of topics. However, I do not understand why we have begun to think that the best way to do this is to have them fill in a bubble sheet, or sit in front of a computer for an hour and take the exact same test. We’ve become immersed in this notion that there is a "standard," which then implies that there is a norm. There's a 'normal' level that a student must attain at a certain time, and that the best way to get them there is to maintain the same timeline across the board.

In spite of the fact that our methods classes certainly cover the topics of differentiation, and "meeting the needs of each student," we see classrooms all around us that teach to the same set-in-stone standards, which translates into more information and less context, relevance, and appeal to students' interests. This may all sound like a long rant criticizing the methods of current teaching, and that is absolutely not the point that I am trying to make. I think that teaching and teachers should be one of the most highly valued professions. I think that many schools do their very best to create well-rounded students who will enter the world as functional citizens who can contribute to society. I am simply trying to express the fact that we are in danger of getting lost along the way. We have focused too much on the numerical scores that we are producing rather than the wonderful, creative, and inspired individuals who we are helping to shape.

I know that I am entering this profession at a time of great change. There are shifts occurring within the standards, the expectations, and the focus of what we are teaching. I constantly wonder how I am going to be the teacher I imagine myself to be during this time of reform. I wonder how I am possibly going to adhere to these state and national standards with each class that I have, since I know that every single student, and thus every classroom, is unique. The state declares that a class must be at a specific point in the curriculum at a specific time, but what if we need more time? What if we need less? How can I possibly fit in all of the projects and support and guidance that my students will need to fully understand why what they’re learning is important and applicable to the real world? How will I foster minds that love learning, instead of ones that dread testing and begin to believe that they are "too stupid" to learn because they're not categorized in the "correct" numerical column? These are all things I've seen already, and it would be a lie to say that I'm not overwhelmed and terrified.

At the end of the day, what I put my hope and belief in is my students. As adults, we tend to follow the rules and the expectations that society has laid out for us. But from what I’ve seen, kids are resilient, and strong, and independent; and they don’t see the obstacles that we've so forcefully erected around them. I hope that although I may have to teach an ordained curriculum to a dictated set of standards,that I can somehow foster growth and creativity in my students that will help them grow into a new generation of learners. I believe it's possible that many of the teachers being trained in this day and age have similar feelings; and maybe if we can genuinely put our hearts and souls into this craft, our students, with their vibrant tenacity, will carry with them a passion for learning long after they’ve left our classroom. I hope that we won’t forever be caught up in a world that "normalizes" and standardizes, but instead in one that celebrates differences and fosters better people, rather than better scores.

~Susan M. Tran

Confronted with these contradictory pressures and expectations, some teachers grow cynical, some conform, and some exit the profession. And a few find safe places to give children what they know is right.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

An experienced teacher who took a job with an online (virtual) charter school corporation wants to blow the whistle on unbelievable conditions under which these teachers labor.

I have an MS in Education and two areas of special education. I have endorsements in eight specialty areas.
I have obtained certification in 11 states in order to teach for Connections [a Pearson Learning company].
I have been a public educator, pre-school through college, for more than 25 years.

During the month of September, I have had between 1300-1500+ students in my courses. I have had a total of about 1900 students move through my courses this past month. Recently a "small number" of students were moved to a new hire teacher. She has approximately 1300 students, and I now have 1100 students in approximately 80 sections. These sections are throughout the nation with students in various levels of Elementary through 12th grade. I also have had approximately 360 SPED students in my courses at any one time. I have about 250 at this time.

By the way, I am not receiving more compensation for this huge case load of students. I do not have a contract. I am paid $20,000 a year less than I was paid when I left my brick and mortar school. Connections Learning teachers do not receive retirement benefits. There is no union for virtual teachers.

As a teacher with integrity, I am appalled and don't know where to turn. I have had dialogues with Connections administrators and with Connections HR, sharing my concerns, to no avail.
My student numbers have increased by 100 students just this week. 500 students were moved last week to the new teacher.

Stories such as these can be multiplied hundreds of times as the virtual charter school juggernaut rolls on.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Now, Arizonans for Charter School Accountability has exposed a crass and cynical manipulation of the charter school financing system. Cynical and crass because it exploits money designated for special needs students to increase its already considerable profits. You can read the details at ACSC's website or jump to the story immediately that has been reproduced below:

Special Education Fraud II: BASIS Inc.

BASIS Inc. does everything possible to game Arizona’s financial system. They received Federal start up funds, designed for new charter holders, to build their 12th school. They charter each school individually and claim they are “small” schools to receive additional funding, even though they have over 8000 total students.
Now we find that in 2013-14 they claimed to have 19 severely handicapped students in eight schools. Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, Multiple Disabilities, Autism, Intellectual Disability - all students that require a great deal of support to achieve in school. These students generate four to six times the revenue per pupil of a regular education child to pay for the extensive services they require. These 19 students netted an additional $350,000 in state assistance for BASIS Inc.
(Data is on the ADE Finance site: Charter Equalization Report (CHAR55-1) 2014)

The problem? According to their 2014 Annual Financial Report, BASIS expended ZERO dollars on special education in all of its 12 schools, except for $244,800 for “general administration” that went straight to BASIS Inc. Worse yet, every BASIS school claims to have spent an identical amount, exactly $20,400, for special education general administration, whether they had education students or not.

It is hard to image 19 severely handicapped students being able to navigate one of the most rigorous curriculums in the country without assistance. There are three possibilities:

First is the possibility that BASIS is collecting $350,000 for special education students that don’t exist. That is fraud on both a state and federal level.
Or maybe BASIS legitimately has 19 handicapped students and is not providing them appropriate services. That would prompt a huge investigation from Federal officials with I.D.E.A., the ADE Special Education Unit, and maybe the Office of Civil Rights.

This is exactly what happened at the new BASIS school in Washington D.C. Special education students were simply placed in remedial programs that all struggling students attended. BASIS was forced by OCR to make major changes in dealing with special education students.

Or finally, maybe BASIS has identified these students correctly and is providing stellar programs to meet their individual needs - hey just are not reporting spending money for any special education personnel, materials, or outside services. The identical $20,400 each BASIS school supposedly spends on special education administration indicates that the figures are made up. What else is fabricated?

At the least, special education students need to be reevaluated every three years. But BASIS shows no expenditures for special education purchase services, the code they would use to pay for a psychologist perform the testing. Why would they show no special education expenditures?

Arrogance. The same arrogance that cons parents out of millions of dollars every year for workbooks, art supplies, extra curricular activities, and even funds to compensate their underpaid teachers and to build new schools. The same arrogance that makes it OK to take startup funds or pretend their school are “small” to get more funding.
The total lack of oversight in Arizona breeds arrogance. BASIS is building a national chain at the expense of taxpayers and parents, and high needs special education students.

We filed formal complaints with state and federal officials today. The complaints can be viewed at out website:
azcsa.org

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

The latest Gallup poll  sponsored in part by Phi Delta Kappa  shows that parents of students feel that there is too much emphasis on standardized testing and that almost half would choose to "opt out" of the testing for their child.

Parents are joined by public school teachers who expressed overwhelming dissatisfaction with standardized testing of the Common Core in an earlier Gallup poll.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Monday, August 17, 2015

I was introduced to psychometrics in 1959. I thought it was really neat.

By 1960, I was programming a computer on a psychometrics research project funded by the Office of Naval Research. In 1962, I entered graduate school to study educational measurement under the top scholars in the field.

My mentors – both those I spoke with daily and those whose works I read – had served in WWII. Many did research on human factors — measuring aptitudes and talents and matching them to jobs. Assessments showed who were the best candidates to be pilots or navigators or marksmen. We were told that psychometrics had won the war; and of course, we believed it.

The next wars that psychometrics promised it could win were the wars on poverty and ignorance. The man who led the Army Air Corps effort in psychometrics started a private research center. (It exists today, and is a beneficiary of the millions of dollars spent on Common Core testing.) My dissertation won the 1966 prize in Psychometrics awarded by that man’s organization. And I was hired to fill the slot recently vacated by the world’s leading psychometrician at the University of Illinois. Psychometrics was flying high, and so was I.

Psychologists of the 1960s & 1970s were saying that just measuring talent wasn’t enough. Talents had to be matched with the demands of tasks to optimize performance. Measure a learning style, say, and match it to the way a child is taught. If Jimmy is a visual learner, then teach Jimmy in a visual way. Psychometrics promised to help build a better world. But twenty years later, the promises were still unfulfilled. Both talent and tasks were too complex to yield to this simple plan. Instead, psychometricians grew enthralled with mathematical niceties. Testing in schools became a ritual without any real purpose other than picking a few children for special attention.

Around 1980, I served for a time on the committee that made most of the important decisions about the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The project was under increasing pressure to “grade” the NAEP results: Pass/Fail; A/B/C/D/F; Advanced/Proficient/Basic. Our committee held firm: such grading was purely arbitrary, and worse, would only be used politically. The contract was eventually taken from our organization and given to another that promised it could give the nation a grade, free of politics. It couldn’t.

Measurement has changed along with the nation. In the last three decades, the public has largely withdrawn its commitment to public education. The reasons are multiple: those who pay for public schools have less money, and those served by the public schools look less and less like those paying taxes.

The degrading of public education has involved impugning its effectiveness, cutting its budget, and busting its unions. Educational measurement has been the perfect tool for accomplishing all three: cheap and scientific looking.

International tests have purported to prove that America’s schools are inefficient or run by lazy incompetents. Paper-and-pencil tests seemingly show that kids in private schools – funded by parents – are smarter than kids in public schools. We’ll get to the top, so the story goes, if we test a teacher’s students in September and June and fire that teacher if the gains aren’t great enough.

There has been resistance, of course. Teachers and many parents understand that children’s development is far too complex to capture with an hour or two taking a standardized test. So resistance has been met with legislated mandates. The test company lobbyists convince politicians that grading teachers and schools is as easy as grading cuts of meat. A huge publishing company from the UK has spent $8 million in the past decade lobbying Congress. Politicians believe that testing must be the cornerstone of any education policy.

The results of this cronyism between corporations and politicians have been chaotic. Parents see the stress placed on their children and report them sick on test day. Educators, under pressure they see as illegitimate, break the rules imposed on them by governments. Many teachers put their best judgment and best lessons aside and drill children on how to score high on multiple-choice tests. And too many of the best teachers exit the profession.

When measurement became the instrument of accountability, testing companies prospered and schools suffered. I have watched this happen for several years now. I have slowly withdrawn my intellectual commitment to the field of measurement. Recently I asked my dean to switch my affiliation from the measurement program to the policy program. I am no longer comfortable being associated with the discipline of educational measurement.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Tom Luna served briefly as state superintendent of instruction for the state of Idaho. Luna was the darling of the online education corporations. In fact, K12 Inc. actually brought him to D.C. during his campaign for state superintendent and threw a fund raiser for him. It worked; he got elected; and K12 Inc. profited royally from his tenure.

There's more to the story of Tom Luna  who has largely disappeared from the political scene  and few are as well positioned to tell the story tas an Idaho teacher. Enter Jon Ziegler, a twenty-five year veteran of Idaho public education. I have invited Jon to present his thoughts on what the brief life of Tom Luna as state superintendent added up to.
Forthwith, Jon's thoughts:

There are two positions concerning Tom Luna, former state superintendent of education for Idaho:

Having been a very polarizing politician, it is hard to find middle ground where Tom Luna is concerned.

Since his Wikipedia page appears to be run by a supporter, I will list the accomplishments of his Students Come First "initiative" as they are enumerated at Wikipedia.

Idaho school reforms
As a member of the Nampa School Board from 1994 to 2002, Luna supported school vouchers and tax credits for private schools as a means to increase competition in education.
Running for the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Idaho position in 2006, Luna focused on promoting charter schools. Columnist William McGurn stated that he found Luna's business experience and lack of education degree, "refreshing".

Students Come First
The centerpiece of education reforms spearheaded by Luna following his 2006 election as Superintendent is a package of legislation known as Students Come First. Among the reforms in the Students Come First package, passed by the Idaho Legislature in 2011, are:

New limits to the collective bargaining rights of Idaho teachers

Raised the annual minimum pay for new teachers by $345

Established a performance-based merit pay system for teachers

Increase classroom sizes in grades 4 through 12

Phased out tenure, instead implementing one- and two-year rolling contracts for every new teacher and administrator, depending on experience

Required online course credit for high school graduation

Provided laptop computers for all high school teachers and high school students and classroom Wi-Fi.

Luna's proposed reforms have been challenged though ballot initiatives. Among the opponents is the Idaho Education Association, a state teachers union. Petitions challenging the Students Come First legislation collected enough signatures to place the matter on the state's November 6, 2012, general election ballot. There were three separate ballot propositions because the reforms were passed with three legislative bills. Voters rejected all three propositions on November 6, striking down the reforms.

Luna's "laws" were nothing more than a reworking of Michelle Rhee's disaster in Washington, D.C. As stated in the above blog, "Students Come First" was not very original.
A less biased assessment of Luna’s "reforms" than that found at Wikipedia looks like this.

Working as they do in a Right to Work state before Luna was elected to office, Idaho teachers were already in a precarious situation in regard to collective bargaining. The legislature's passage of Luna’s initiative gave school districts the opportunity for free-for-alls in how they negotiated with teachers. Teachers’ salaries were cutback because of the economy, the administration claimed, but more likely the cutback was due to the wish to purchase laptops and Wi-Fi. One school board member was pushing for a 13% decrease in pay, and wanted to stipulate that it was permanent. It was not until an IEA attorney showed up for negotiations that things calmed down a bit. Our district saw a 6.5% "non-permanent" reduction in pay. That was passed in the Spring of 2010. Teachers are still trying to recoup these losses.
Raising the annual minimum wage for new teachers by under $30 a month was a sham. Under Luna, new teacher salaries dropped from $36,000 (statewide) to $29,000 (statewide). So with a smile, Luna told the new teachers that they were getting a "raise."

Merit pay, which I do not necessarily have issues with, was another reason wages were cut for teachers. Luna needed to fund merit pay. Of course within districts, merit pay tends toward crony-ism. To help support his position for merit pay, Luna had Frank Vandersloot (owner or a large radio network and chief financier of American Heritage Charter School) write op-eds concerning how bonuses and merit pay have brought excellence to his company. Currently Vandersloot is suing "Mother Jones" for their the magazine's having called Vandersloot a "gay-basher." Also, the Albertson [grocery chain] Foundation lobbied hard for merit pay.

Luna's position on class size was that the number of students in a classroom did not matter. Imagine, the end of August, 40 students in your classroom, and no oppressive heat (being in Eastern Idaho most schools do not possess air conditioning.) And that has nothing to do with the educational ramifications with having 40+ students in a class.

Under Luna, teachers who had tenure kept it and were to be grandfathered in. New teachers would be on rolling contracts. Although the laws were dumped by Republican voters, this portion of Luna's "laws" has been the most lasting (outside of pay cuts). School administrators used this to move teachers around districts without challenges.

Laptops for every student is a still a financial burden for the state. Wireless carriers have been suing the State Department of Education for the money involved with the contracts Tom Luna signed. Until recently, the newspapers did not even mention this was Tom Luna's doing. The headlines just stated that Sherri Ybarra, his successor, was strapped with these contracts to deliver wireless to school districts (which most districts already had), for computers, for which they were no longer required to purchase.

I could continue, but as stated before, the on-line literature concerning Tom Luna is endless. Before the members of his own party voted down the "Luna Laws," Tom Luna was being spoken of in the press as being Idaho's future governor. Although his tenure as Idaho's school's chief has caused chaos within the state's education system (regardless of what he writes), his laws being voted down saved the state from Luna being governor. It destroyed him politically, for now. The state legislators, who jumped on his ship of error, do not mention him. It is as if he never existed. Locally, his former hardcore supporters dropped him for his endorsing the Common Core State Standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to express myself.

Jon Ziegler is a California ex-patriot living in Eastern Idaho. He has taught since. I have taught emotionally disturbed students, regular classroom classes, primarily special education along with math, literature, PE, and history. Currently he teaches at an alternative high school. He graduated with a degree in history, and a minor in philosophy, from Brigham Young University . He received a graduate degree in Instructional Leadership and a second degree in Special Education from National University - Sacramento.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

The Opt Out Movement is an unorganized, spontaneous attempt by students and parents – and we can assume, with the support of some teachers – to stem the rising tide of standardized testing by external agencies. The movement is opposed by politicians, testing companies, and the federal government. A recent event brings to the forefront the dynamics underlying the Opt Out Movement.

Jim Vacca teaches an Advanced Placement class in Language Arts at Boulder (CO) High School. Boulder High was a site for the try-out of the PARCC test – the Pearson company’s entry into the Common Core testing business. The administration of Boulder High was prepared for a bit of opting out after the cross town Fairview High School students staged a huge walk out in protest of the state assessment test earlier in the year. Boulder High students were told that if they opted out of the PARCC that they were to attend study hall when the test was administered.

But Jim Vacca’s students were more interested in learning than twiddling thumbs in study hall or serving as guinea pigs for the Pearson company. They asked Vacca to hold their regular AP Language Arts class, and he did.

The Boulder High administration did not take kindly to Vacca’s act of insubordination, and they informed Vacca that he would no longer be allowed to teach AP classes. His students have started a petition to have him reinstated as the AP Language Arts teacher.

We can draw several observations from this incident:

The Opt Out Movement is a special middle class movement. Boulder High and Fairview High are not typical middle class schools. They are located in a city that is overwhelmingly Democrat in voting preference. (By city ordinance, pet owners must be referred to as “guardians” in official communications.) The Opt Out Movement has yet to penetrate where testing does most harm.

As Diane Ravitch once observed, the hope for the success of the Opt Out Movement resides with the students and retired teachers. Teachers currently employed are easy targets for retaliation.

School administrators at several levels are afraid of retaliation by state agencies and the federal government if they refuse to go along with external testing schemes. In a recent exchange on an internet discussion list, and employee of one of the big contractors in the assessment business was quick to point out that those opting out were risking the cut-off of federal funds.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

There's bad news for all those neoliberal and conservatives who think that free markets and competition are the royal road to the shining city on the hill. The free market constantly takes a back seat to "crony capitalism": "an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism."

First, about 5 or 6 years ago the founders of the Basis charter school chain thought they would enter the private school market in Scottsdale, Arizona, and reap those huge private school tuition profits. And why not? Private schools like Phoenix Country Day and Tesseract were charging $20,000+ a year tuition and turning kids away. But the Basis Scottsdale ad campaign produced a mere 7 takers by the time school was to open in the fall, and the founders quickly converted Basis Scottsdale from private to charter. "Free" tuition for all comers  "free," that is, to everybody but the taxpayers. Crony capitalism at work.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Arizona is a national leader in charter school activity for the simple reason that its Republican-led legislature has successfully blocked almost all attempts to introduce some fiscal accountability into the system. Consequently, such accountability has had to grow up outside state government as citizen initiated efforts. One of the foremost of these is Arizonans for Charter School Accountability, the creation of Jim Hall, a retired public school administrator.

What is sadly amusing about the televised piece is that the charter school featured at the beginning and portrayed favorably is the very same charter school featured in this blog in February. The Challenge Charter School in Glendale, AZ, has only 600 students, loses the vast majority of them by middle school, and pays the owner, his wife, and his daughter $430,000 a year in salary and benefits! If this is as good as it gets in Arizona, things are indeed in dire straits.

Here's a sample of the kind of reporting that Jim Hall is archiving on his organization's Facebook page:

[Slightly paraphrased for clarity] Leona Group's Sun Valley High School is located in Mesa, Arizona. Nine modular buildings were built in 1995 on 3.7 acres. They sold the school to themselves (a non- profit they created) in 2006 for $7,000,000 and now spend a $1 million a year paying the mortgage and maintaining the campus. They spend $1.2 million on all instruction and support for students. Administration costs come in at $1.2 million. 37% of their budget goes to kids.
How can they get away with making all this money? It's an alternative school with low academic expectations, little parent involvement, a four-day week, and 144-day school year.

Compare this with your local public high school. Look at the campus compared to modular buildings. Consider the 180-day school year and all of the programs, sports, clubs, drama, band, and calculus classes they offer. They get the same amount of state funds that Leona gets.

Leona Group, which operates a dozen or so charter schools in Arizona and 60 schools nationwide, operates in the manner of the charter school economy: form a non-profit foundation to get a charter, then purchase teachers, curriculum, and management services from your own profit-making company. And if the state allows, start buying real estate and renting it to yourself.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

But New Mexico can never wrest the crown of Most Backward State Government from Arizona. In the 2015 legislative session, the AZ House passed an amendment to Senate Bill 1172 that places a gag order on any school employee who publicly protests legislative action. The bill "prohibits an employee of a school district or charter school, acting on the district's or charter school's behalf, from distributing electronic materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation."

It is always amazing to see how fragile the First Amendment truly is. There is no need to enjoin speech with which everyone agrees. But disagree with politicians in power, and you'll find out quickly how little regard they have for the Constitution.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Asked recently about his views on teacher associations, David Berliner, Regents' Professor Emeritus at Arizona State University, had this to say:

When a profession as large and necessary to society as teaching is insulted by state and federal Secretaries of Education, judged negatively by the nation's presidents and governors, see their pensions cut, receive salaries that do not keep up with inflation, often cannot afford to live in the communities they work in, cannot always practice their profession in ways that are ethical and efficacious, are asked to support policies that may do harm to children, are judged by student test scores that are insensitive to instruction and more often reflect social class differences rather than instructional quality, see public monies used to support discriminatory charter and private schools, yet still have a great deal of support from the parents of the children they teach, then there is a strategy for making teachers' lives better. It is called unionization. The reasons for unionization could not be plainer. New and veteran teachers should band together and close down school systems of the type I have described. It will be difficult, of course, and some teachers will no doubt be fired and jailed. But if teachers do not fix this once noble profession, America may well lose its soul, as well as its edge.

The Teacher Educator, 50, (1), 2-3.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Friday, March 13, 2015

There's a movement growing across the nation. It's called "Opt Out," and it means, refusal to subject oneself or one's children to the rampant standardized testing that has gripped public schools. The tentacles of the accountability testing movement have reached into every quarter of America's public schools. And the audience for this information is composed of politicians attempting to bust unions, taxpayers hoping to replace high-salary teachers with low-salary teachers, and Realtors dodging red-lining laws while steering clients to the "best schools." Those urging parents and students to refuse to be tested cite the illegitimacy of these motives and the increasing amount of time for learning that is being given over to assessing learning.

At present, the Opt Out movement is small  a few thousand students in Colorado, several hundred in New Mexico, and smatterings of ad hoc parent groups in the East. Some might view these small numbers as no threat to the accountability assessment industry. But the threat is more serious than it appears. Politicians and others want to rank schools and school districts according to their test score averages. Or they want to compare teachers according to their test score gains (Value Added Measurement) and pressure the low scorers or worse. It only takes a modest amount of Opting Out to thwart these uses of the test data. If 10% of the parents at the school say "No" to the standardized test, how do the statisticians adjust or correct for those missing data? Which 10% opted out? The highest scorers? The lowest? A scattering of high and low scorers? And would any statistical sleight of hand to correct for "missing data" stand up in court against a teacher who was fired or a school that was taken over by the state for a "turn around"? I don't think so.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Management by numbers proves to be management by pinheads. Nothing exposes so clearly the naïveté and lack of understanding of managers and boards as when they start believing that complex human organizations can be managed by numbers: quantitative goals and numerical quotas; and in the case of educating children, drop-out rates, attendance statistics, promotion percentages, or test scores.

Beverly Hall died yesterday (March 2, 2015) after having been diagnosed recently with stage 4 breast cancer. Beverly Hall had a distinguished career as an education administrator that led her to one of the most prestigious positions in the nation: Superintendent of the Atlanta, Georgia public schools. Her service there was recognized with several honors: National Superintendent of the Year in 2009 and, later, the Distinguished Contributions to Service award of the American Educational Research Association. Hall was celebrated far and wide as a new breed of administrator. In her own words, she was a “data driven” manager. Decisions often rested heavily on the test scores of the classes and schools of the people who worked under her. Atlanta schools were the jewel in the crown of Management by Numbers … until it all came crashing down.

Hall was ultimately indicted for overseeing the scheme that inflated test scores of thousands of students in an attempt to create the fiction that she had “turned around” a failing school system. The criminal case against Hall will obviously be dropped. To be sure, Hall was at least guilty of some pretty shady activities, and she put her subordinates in circumstances where equally shady dealings were required to maintain one’s employment (a la Michelle Rhee and the Washington D.C. school system). But equally guilty is an ethos permeating organizations of many different kinds that holds that the management of complex dealings with human beings can be reduced to simple arithmetic.

Take my local school district, for example: Scottsdale (AZ) Unified School District. Recent actions (February 10, 2015) by the school governing board have resulted in a system of quantitative goals and bonuses for the district superintendent. Among these goals are 1) maintaining a 90% graduation rate, 2) remaining in the top 10% of the state’s districts on whatever the state standardized test will be, 3) reducing the teacher turn-over rate by half a percentage point, and 4) ensuring that 85% of the district students meet the state benchmarks in reading and math. Exactly what the superintendent’s bonus will be if these goals are met has not been disclosed to the media.

Anyone who knows the first thing about how schools run will recognize immediately that numerical goals like the ones favored by the Scottsdale Unified school board can be “gamed.” Counsel a few students away from some of the more challenging courses, put out a few broad hints about grading scales in those tough science courses that are flunking too many kids, or give a little extra time on those state bench marking tests, and voila the goals are met and the bonus is in hand.

In the social sciences there is something known as Campbell’s Law  attributed to a former colleague of mine, the social psychologist Donald T. Campbell. It goes as follows: “"The more any quantitative social indicator … is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Last Friday, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber resigned from office because of allegations that he used his influence to get employment for his fiancee. In Arizona, such conflicts of interest would not even raise an eyebrow. A few years back, Arizonans saw the Chairperson of the State Charter School Board award a charter to a non-profit foundation (which was really K12 Inc., the online school provider), then be hired by the foundation to head the Arizona Virtual Academy, and then be hired by K12 Inc. as a vice-president for something-or-other. She continues to occupy the latter two posts.

Arizona simply doesn't recognize things called conflicts of interest. I could list dozens concerning public education. A staff member the Board of Regents once told me that in Arizona if you declare your connections, then you can no longer be accused of having a conflict of interest. Perhaps this qualifies as some minimal level of ethical behavior.

A new flagrant conflict of interest has just become apparent to me. A man named Greg Miller is president of the Arizona State Board of Education. There is also a man named Greg Miller who is CEO of Challenge Charter School in Glendale, AZ, a suburb of Phoenix. Matching up photos of the Board president and the charter CEO leaves no doubt that these two individuals are one in the same Greg Miller. Mr. Miller, a civil engineer for 25 years, founded Challenge Charter School in the late 1990s and for a while served as principal. His current title is CEO. Mrs. Pam Miller, his wife, once served on a school board; the Challenge Charter Schools website lists no current duties for Mrs. Miller. But daughter Wendy Miller was appointed Principal of Challenge Charter School the same year in which she earned her MBA.

Challenge Charter School Inc. is registered as a non-profit organization so it must file an IRS 990 form, which is publicly available. Here's what that form shows as salaries of the top management for 2013.

Greg Miller, the CEO of a school "system" with about 650 students, is being compensated to the tune of $145,000 annually. His wife receives the same salary, though her duties are never enumerated at the website and her position is only described as "Executive Director/Vice-PR," whatever Vice-PR is. The Miller's daughter Wendy, who has degrees in Public Administration and Business, receives a salary of more than $120,000 for acting as Principal/Secretary.
Basically, the Miller family, while working assiduously 60 hours a week each as reported on their IRS form, is taking about $425,000 a year out of the coffers for salary. This nepotism and "business" attitude of the founders has not been lost on the disgruntled parents who have reviewed the school online.

Challenge Charter School portrays itself as a highly academic school, claiming to be Arizona's first official Core Knowledge school. Like many charter schools of its ilk, the appeal of this heavy academic focus seems to wane quickly in the eyes of parents. Enrollments drop from more than 100 in 1st grade to fewer than 50 in grade 6. As with many charter schools advertising themselves as "academic" in diverse communities, Challenge Charter School is contributing to racial and socio-economic segregation in the Glendale community. The enrollment of Challenge Charter is almost 85% White and Asian, where as the enrollment of Canyon Elementary, a traditional public school just 12 blocks distant, is 70% White and Asian. But more strikingly, Canyon Elementary has 40% of its 400 student eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch, while Challenge Charter has less than half that percentage.

Crony capitalism, conflicts of interest, charter schools lining the pockets of amateur entrepreneurs, "quasi-private" schools being operated at public expense, an increasingly segregated state school system ... it's just education reform Arizona style.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Friday, February 13, 2015

It all started when Doug Ducey won the governor's race last November. Ducey, who cut his political teeth as a student at Arizona State University editing the campus newspaper, made his millions in the ice cream business (Cold Stone Creamery). Immediately upon taking office he instituted a hiring freeze and promised to increase school choice. That same mid-term election saw a virtual unknown Republican school board member, Diane Douglas, defeat ASU Education professor David Garcia for the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Douglas vowed to dump Common Core on grounds of its being federal intrusion into a state responsibility, but policy had nothing to do with her victory; if you had an R behind your name in the mid-term election, you won.

Two days ago, Douglas fired two of the top administrators of the State Board of Education -- Executive Director and Asst. Executive Director. It's not hard to imagine why; they were far down the road of installing the Common Core in Arizona schools. Although Douglas is ex officio member of the State Board, the Governor questioned whether she had the authority to hire these two persons and he reinstated them. Yesterday, the whole business erupted in a public fight between Ducey and Douglas over whether the latter has the authority to fire people in her department. After a prayer breakfast Thursday morning, the Governor was barely out the door before he gave reporters an insincere piece of his mind: "[I'm] sorry she chose to go down that path." Douglas shot back. Ducey, she said, is establishing a "shadow faction of charter school operators and former state superintendents [referring to Lisa Graham Keegan who supported Douglas's opponent in the election] who support Common Core and moving funds from traditional public schools to charter schools."

Score +1 for Douglas for speaking the truth. The Arizona Senate has moved forward quickly in this session to support the privatization of K-12 education. The Senate education committee has already approved bills that would 1) award vouchers (at 90% state per pupil expenditure) to any student whose application has been turned down to open enroll in a public school or a charter school within 25 miles of their home, and 2) award a voucher to any student on an Indian reservation. Clearly the Republicans are flexing their muscles after the November victory; such radical pro-voucher legislating has never before made it into law in Arizona. Perhaps this is the year.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

I don't think that Leonard Waks blogs. But he posted a long message on his Facebook page that really captures so much of the madness that currently masquerades as education reform. In the interest of promulgating his message, I have reproduced his post below  without asking him and without his permission. (Who could possibly object to having their thoughts shared far and wide?) What Waks argues here is that the modus operandi of education reform is not unique to education, but in fact is a strategy for effecting change in many other areas of modern life. Just to be clear; what follows is not my writing, but I agree with all of the ideas expressed.

Leonard Waks writes:

Most of my professional energy over the last fifty years has been devoted to attacking educational tyranny. There is a pattern in this form of tyranny.

First, a crisis is manufactured. The nation is at risk. The sky is falling. None of this is innocent; there are interests pushing crisis - those who will profit from it either by gaining bureaucratic power or commercial profit.
Next, the situation is grossly oversimplified. We are committing educational suicide because our test scores are falling. (In the education case, the data were simply misinterpreted - our always low test scores were actually rising). So we fall into simplistic thinking where a single criterion variable is substituted for a balanced picture about what education should achieve.

Next a magic bullet solution is found - involving a direct approach to that single variable. The problem is test scores, so we will impose a test-prep and standardized test regime.
All thinking is then reduced to "what works". My friends in the educational research community will remember how the department of education rejected all research proposals that were not about "what works" - and what works = what raises test scores.

The solution may have some impact on the criterion variable - test scores may go up. In some cases the data is simply falsified to make believe that they do.

Then a coercive regime is imposed where every school district and teacher is compelled to fall into line. Test prep galore. No child left behind = do what we mandate or lose your funding - and for teachers, do what we mandate or lose your job.

There are costs. The most significant costs are that in a test-prep environment, thinking, productive struggle, self-directed learning, teacher-student cooperative projects, the arts, and the pleasure of learning get eliminated from the curriculum. These are, however, the factors that matter most in education.

The costs, however, are mere "side effects" that are not measured. We have a single criterion of evaluation - test scores. So when the question arises about the true costs of the test-prep regime, no one knows.
This is educational tyranny, and it is prevalent.

Now I do not want to make a strict analogy with the vaccine war, but I do want to call attention to some parallels.
We start with a manufactured crisis. We have 100 active cases today. People might remember the Ebola crisis. We had, if i am not mistaken, zero fatalities. The crisis is not innocent - again there are powerful interests in play.
(A note: I do not know the ages of the affected, or whether they had already been vaccinated. Age matters, because for older people measles is a nasty business).

Second, the situation is grossly oversimplified. We have to wipe out this deadly scourge.

Third, a magic bullet is found. vaccines "work". And no child can be left behind.

A single criterion variable is used - in this case the reduction in cases of the childhood diseases (MMR).

A coercive regime is then put in place to assure that everyone is compliant.

As in the education case, the vaccine regime has at least potential costs. For example, vaccine immunity is temporary while natural immunity from the disease is permanent. So those who get the vaccine have less (or no) immunity as adults, when, unlike in childhood, the disease is really nasty.

Some data suggests that measles is now more concentrated among adults.

The vaccine dissenters hypothesize that in addition those who have gone through the childhood diseases have better general immunity and are less susceptible to other adult diseases ranging from MS to cancer.

With the single variable approach - the reduction in the childhood diseases - no studies are made of such "side effects" as compromised adult immunity. If we ask about the costs, the answer is 'who knows?'

So to make my own position clear: I am not anti-vaccine. I am totally for the tetanus vaccine - which actually provides better long term immunity than the disease itself. I am for the polio vaccine - because polio was a really nasty business - I saw my friends dropping like flies in the summers of the 1950s, and saw the vaccine wiping polio out.

I am not a dissenter on the MMR vaccine. But I don't know enough to endorse it wholeheartedly. I want to know more about it's long term effects.

What am i against? The pattern of manufactured crisis, gross oversimplification, single variable 'science', magic bullet solutions, and coercive implementation.

~Leonard Waks

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Thursday, January 8, 2015

The cream doesn't rise to the top in the charter schools. It starts at the top.

Charter schools have long been known for their filtering out at the admissions stage of students who might require special services or who might lower their test score average. BASIS charter schools are notorious for requiring long essays from applicants and for flunking out students who do badly on tests. BASIS middle school classes of a few hundred are winnowed to a few dozen by graduation time. BASIS  which operates 10 charter schools in Arizona, one in D.C. and one in San Antonio  opened BASIS Phoenix Central in downtown Phoenix in 2014. A BASIS spokesperson points out that the public elementary schools in the area are "underperforming." BASIS has a plan for that, or rather BASIS has no plan to improve the schools of central Phoenix. It simply has a plan that will attract the better students from the surrounding public schools and leave them further impoverished.

Pennsylvania is challenging Arizona as the school choice capital of the world. The Keystone state already offers an array of alternatives to the traditional public schools: charters, virtual charters, and who knows what other inventions. Some charter schools in Philadelphia have recently been discovered charging a "application fee"; and some administer a questionnaire to determine if a prospective student meet need special education services or English-language learning instruction. Almost needless to say, such needs do not increase the odds of acceptance.

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools announced in 2014 that the
number of public charter schools operating in the United States has surpassed 6,400
for the first time with 2.5 million students.
The public charter school movement in the 2013-14 school year saw a net gain of 436
schools enrolling 288,000 more students than in 2012-13.
The charter movement has become
the fastest growing segment of our public education system.

Colorado added 9,000
students and 14 new public charter schools.
The Walton Family Foundation announced that it has now surpassed $10 million
in startup investments in Denver with the support of four charter schools in Denver
in 2013. In addition, with 2013 investments, the foundation has now supported the
startup of 1,500 schools, one in four charter schools in the nation, through its
Public Charter Startup Grant program.
The foundation has now supported the
startup of more than 40 Denver charter schools since 1998.

To some, growth is a good thing. Others see the growth of the charter school sector as the spreading of
fraud and under-performance, and the continued resegregation of the nation's public school system.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

About Me

Follow Tweets @GeneVGlass. Lecturer at Connie L. Lurie College of Education, San José State University; Emeritus Regents' Professor at Arizona State University, and Senior Researcher at the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.